June 2016 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: cross connects and their pound of flesh
by Brandon Butterworth 19 Jun '16

19 Jun '16

> From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick(a)ianai.net> > Colo providers are absolutely worried about drops in xconn revenue. > Look at some large colo providers who are public and split out their > numbers. Youll see that the percentage of their profit from xconns is > usually more than double the percentage of their revenue from xconns. Perhaps their investors should have looked closely at those figures and priced according to risk. > Put another way, if xconn revenue drops by 10%, their profit drops by > over 20%. How many public companies can shrug off a 20% drop in EPS? I > submit: Not very many. Tough, revenues can go down as well as up. If you gouge your customers they will try harder to find ways not to give you money. If I have to do an xcon I prefer to do it in Telehouse rather than Telecity as Telecity is 100% more install and 32% more annually (Telehouse also discount for extra cores). Some USA DC are way more expensive than either of these UK DC (for now, UK DC only moved to the recurring fee model after it'd been established elsewhere) They've probably been using xcon revenue to make it look like they are still growing quickly to inflate share price. A few aquisitions can hide reality for a bit longer. Capitalism is great but it does lead to unreasonable expectations such as never ending growth xcon revenue worked for Telecity to get a nice buyout, be interesting to see how their new owners handle it. brandon

1 0

Re: IP and Optical domains?
by Gert Grammel 19 Jun '16

19 Jun '16

Glen, Here's a list of technical issues for whatever it is worth: Transport networks assume a service to be a circuit with two end-points which optionally can be protected by some transport mechanisms. Each of such services is unrelated to others. In a routed network a transport service corresponds to a link adjacency between routers. To design a resilient router network it is desired that links between different pairs of routers are unrelated to each other and don't fail together (are shared-risk-link-group diverse). Hence links are related in being unrelated. Now let's start: 1) transport folks don't disclose their physical topology: no chance to design a reliably resilient network on top. Workaround: ask for protected transport links. This increased availability comes with the cost of duplicating transport resources. Actually it is often more than double since the protecting circuit is a bit longer than the protected one. 2) transport folks do disclose the physical topology including nodes. Considering those nodes as single point of failure, it requires more BW available in Routers to cover failures and tricky configuration. 3) alternatively you could ask to install more transport equipment to avoid SPOF which obviously comes with a price tag too 4) once settled, the Transport network may grow. This means that circuits once in a while get moved to other resources. Typically the result of a transport network re-planning, a protection action or simply a forgotten reversion after a maintenance event. Consequently, whatever was achieved in 2) or 3) may just become void over time. There are basically two ways to deal with the complexity: 1) create an information exchange that let networking and transport controllers take informed decisions: You may want to look at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-interconnected-te-info-exc… 2) forget about switching anything in Transport, nail the structure down in config and move on. You may like then https://meetings.ripe.net/see3/files/Ian_Farrer-The_Terastream_Native_IPv6_… If you now think transport is all the same, irrespective of technology, then I suggest to take another breath: 1) since multiplexing lambdas is passive, Operators often do not count WDM or ROADM nodes as SPOF. Note: multiplexing is indeed passive but followed by Amplifiers which are not. 2) in SONET one could connect any vendor's node to everyone else's e.g. With OC48. This is not true in DWDM. While the Ethernet connecting to a wavelength is a standard, the wavelength itself is proprietary and linked to the component vendor of the transceiver. Transponders are in fact acting as adaptor plugs between standard and proprietary transport. As a result, if you find a left-over Gen-1 transponder and want to hook it up to a Gen-3 transponder of the same system vendor - it may not work because the component supplier changed. It also means you can't simply re-structure a DWDM network in an on-demand manner if such effects are present. I leave it up to you to draw your own conclusions. Gert Sent from my Apple ][)

1 0

Re: cross connects and their pound of flesh
by Dave Temkin 19 Jun '16

19 Jun '16

On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 12:54 PM, Brandon Ross <bross(a)pobox.com> wrote: > > > Value based pricing is all the rage these days, which is why they charge > you so much for cross connects. Exactly. Not that I don't like free cross connects (they're the bees knees, in fact), but at the end of the day, an existing colo operator is not going to go from paid->free cross connects without extracting that pound of flesh (read: sweet sweet 100% pure margin) from somewhere else. Your space and/or power prices will go up to backfill that lost profit. That said, those of us that buy a decent amount of colo prefer to trade in the value of the asset leased/purchased - space & power - as we have real world indexes to tie the underlying cost to for negotiation purposes. And as colo operators get freaked out over margin compression on the impending 10->100G conversion (which is happening exponentially faster than 100->1G & 1G->10G) they'll need to move those levers of spend around regardless. -Dave

2 1

Do people even read these? Re: BGP Update Report
by Mikael Abrahamsson 18 Jun '16

18 Jun '16

On Fri, 17 Jun 2016, cidr-report(a)potaroo.net wrote: > > TOP 20 Unstable Prefixes > Rank Prefix Upds % Origin AS -- AS Name > 1 - 202.65.32.0/21 28086 0.8% AS10131 -- CKTELECOM-CK-AP Telecom Cook Islands, CK > 2 - 110.170.17.0/24 21868 0.7% AS134438 -- AIRAAIFUL-AS-AP Aira & Aiful Public Company Limited, TH > 3 - 123.231.192.0/24 21562 0.7% AS133841 -- IDOLA-BROADBAND-AS-ID INDONESIA BROADBAND ACCESS - ANYWHERE, ID > 4 - 93.181.192.0/19 20895 0.6% AS13118 -- ASN-YARTELECOM Verhnevolzhsky branch, RU > 5 - 123.231.206.0/24 19170 0.6% AS133841 -- IDOLA-BROADBAND-AS-ID INDONESIA BROADBAND ACCESS - ANYWHERE, ID > 6 - 123.231.193.0/24 19082 0.6% AS133841 -- IDOLA-BROADBAND-AS-ID INDONESIA BROADBAND ACCESS - ANYWHERE, ID > 7 - 195.128.159.0/24 15455 0.5% AS56636 -- ASVEDARU , RU > 8 - 192.254.88.0/24 15452 0.5% AS21859 -- ZNET - Zenlayer Inc, US > 9 - 185.11.121.0/24 14957 0.5% AS202105 -- DSP-AS , SA Everyone of these prefixes have managed to average one update per 40 seconds during a week, or worse. How is that even possible? Yes, I know we don't generally have dampening anymore, but geez, that's a lot of updates. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike(a)swm.pp.se

3 2

AT&T Austin multiple 10Gs hard down, anyone seeing issues as well?
by Nick Crocker 17 Jun '16

17 Jun '16

Looking at some sites and hearing chatter of a pretty wide scale AT&T outage in the Austin and surrounding areas. I have two 10Gs one fed out of Pflugerville, TX and one out of Austin, TX with PE's in Austin, TX and San Antonio, TX. Both dropped at the same time and are on diverse fiber routes and entrance facilities with power and equipment verified. Regards, Nick

1 0

1GE L3 aggregation
by Saku Ytti 17 Jun '16

17 Jun '16

Hey, I've been bit poking around trying to find reasonable option for 1GE L3 full BGP table aggregator. It seems vendors are mostly pushing Satellite/Fusion for this application. I don't really like the added complexity and tight coupling Satellite/Fusion forces me. I'd prefer standards based routing redundancy to reduce impact of defects. ASR9001 and MX104 are not an options, due to control-plane scale. New boxes in vendor pipeline are completely ignoring 1GE. I've casually talked with other people, and it seems I'm not really alone here. My dream box would be 96xSFP + 2xQSFP28, with pretty much full edge features (BGP, LDP, ISIS, +1M FIB, +5M RIB, per-interface VLANs, ipfix or sflow, at least per-port QoS with shaper, martini pseudowires). With tinfoil hat tightly fit on my head, I wonder why vendors are ignoring 1GE? Are business cases entirely driven now by Amazon, Google, Facebook and the likes? Are SP volumes so insignificant in comparison it does not make sense to produce boxes for them? Heck even 10GE is starting to become problematic, if your application is anything else than DC, because you can't choose arbitrary optics. -- ++ytti

6 11

syslog server
by Maximino Velazquez 17 Jun '16

17 Jun '16

Hi nanog community I need help !! What is the best syslog server (opensource)? Thanks for your help Regards. -- Max Velazquez |

10 9

IXP economics Was: Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?
by Martin Hannigan 16 Jun '16

16 Jun '16

Well. Its complicated. I think this is far more political than about COGS. But hey. Why not? I agree with Dave. Shocking. I know. At least the context. He's right. Thanks for reminding us. We know these things. We'll have to see how IXP communities react now. Perhaps espresso service will be defined as good outreach? If it is, thats certainly up to them. Btw, have you thanked your local US branded euro IXP? They created market pressures that saved many of us a Brinks truck full of cash by increasing competitiveness. A lot of us owe them thanks and support for doing good. If you do, grab Job, John, Henk, Pauline, Arnold or Andreas and give them a big COGS crushing hug. Go easy on Pauline, less crush please. Best, Marty On Thursday, June 16, 2016, Zbyněk Pospíchal <zbynek(a)dialtelecom.cz> wrote: > Dne 16.06.16 v 17:17 Niels Bakker napsal(a): > > * zbynek(a)dialtelecom.cz <javascript:;> (Zbyněk Pospíchal) [Thu 16 Jun > 2016, 14:23 CEST]: > > >> Are you sure they still want them if they have to pay for these > >> features separately? > >> > >> Currently, such luxury functions are increasing costs also for > >> networks who don't need/want it. > > > > sFlow statistics isn't a luxury function. > > Anything more than plain L2 in an IXP is a kind of luxury. An IXP member > with it's own flow collection (or at least mac accounting) can feel they > don't need sFlow statistics in an exchange. It's also proven it's > possible to run an IXP, including a big one, without sFlow stats. > > We can say the same about route servers, SLA, customer portals etc. (ok, > remote peering is a different case). > > If IXP members think they have to pay such functionality in their port > fees, ok, it's their own decision, but member's opinion "we don't need > it and we don't want to pay for it" is rational and plausible. > > Best Regards, > Zbynek >

1 0

Call for Presentations - DNS-OARC Fall Workshop, Dallas, Oct. 2016
by Wessels, Duane 16 Jun '16

16 Jun '16

[with apologies to those who see this on multiple lists] Call for Presentations As announced at the close of NANOG67, the DNS-OARC 25th Workshop will take place in Dallas, Texas during October 15th and 16th 2016, the Saturday and Sunday before NANOG68. To attract the best DNS minds, DNS-OARC is requesting proposals for presentations, with a preference for Resolver's Operations experiences, including running DNSSEC validating resolvers. This workshop intends to build from previous strong DNS-OARC workshops, where both operational content and research are welcome. All DNS-related subjects are accepted. If you are an OARC member, and have a sensitive topic you would like to present for members-only, we will accommodate those talks too. A timeslot will be available for lightning talks (5-10 minutes) on Sunday October 16th, for which submissions will be accepted during October 15th on a first-come first-served basis. Workshop Milestones 15th June 2016, Call for Presentations posted and open for submissions 14th August 2016, Deadline for submission 1st September 2016, Final Program published 10th October 2016, Final deadline for slideset submission Details for presentation submission will be published here: https://indico.dns-oarc.net/event/25/call-for-abstracts/ The workshop presentations will be organized by common themes, depending on the topics and the timing of each presentation. There are 30-minute and 15-minute slots, let us know your preference in your submission. To ensure the quality of the workshop, submissions should include slides. Draft slides are acceptable on submission. You can contact the Programme Committee: https://www.dns-oarc.net/oarc/programme via <submissions(a)dns-oarc.net> if you have questions or concerns. Sebastian Castro, for the OARC Programme Committee OARC is also seeking sponsorship for this workshop, please contact <sponsor(a)dns-oarc.net> if your organization is interested in becoming a sponsor. (Please note that OARC is run on a non-profit basis, and is not in a position to reimburse expenses or time for speakers at its meetings.)

1 0

Barefoot "Tofino": 6.4 Tbps whitebox switch silicon?
by Eric Kuhnke 16 Jun '16

16 Jun '16

a lot of PR fluff, but this may be of interest: http://www.wired.com/2016/06/barefoot-networks-new-chips-will-transform-tec… https://barefootnetworks.com/media/white_papers/Barefoot-Worlds-Fastest-Mos… Based on their investors, could have interesting results for much lower cost 100GbE whitebox switches.

8 7